United States of America v. Rosario Rodriguez-Portillo

12-50071Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOct 16, 2012

Full text

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROSARIO RODRIGUEZ-PORTILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50071
D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04475-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rosario Rodriguez-Portillo appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United
States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
OCT 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-50071 2
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Rodriguez-Portillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by
(1) failing to use the Guidelines sentencing range as a starting point, (2) failing to
keep the Guidelines range in mind during sentencing, and (3) relying on deterrence
and the need to protect the public to the exclusion of other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. The record does not support these contentions. The district court
determined the correct Guidelines sentencing range, listened to Rodriguez-
Portillo’s mitigating arguments, considered the section 3553(a) factors, and
sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Rodriguez-Portillo also contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a)
sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.